YAYK, what is JMS Stylet? I can't find it on OMRI.

http://www.omri.org/OMRI_brand_name_list.html

Nov,2002;(American Phytopathological Society). Citations/Author's list of related links(left margin)...
http://www.apsnet.org/online/feature/organic/

Here is a link that might be useful: aps article/links

I am far less concerned with quantity than with quality. I could have much more produce from my garden if I followed the leads of my neighbors who have large farms and spray and fertilze and over-till. However, if you consistently practice proper stewardship, a 5-acre plot can feed 100 familes without compromising organic/sustainable principles. The goal should be for people to eat locally and seasonally; support local/regional small-scale farms. Successful restaurants are doing this; so are many communcal feeding programs in urban areas.

Here is a link that might be useful: Rural Life 2.0

It was the intense farming, without improving the soil and allowing some land to lay fallow, that eventually lead to the "Great Dust Bowl" of the middle states in the early part of the 20th century. I personally feel that you should leave the soil better than you found it.

Once again, one of my favorite people, the Amazing Randi, has called organic farming "woo-woo nonsense."

Do you have a link to what he actually said? I like Randi and I am hoping he didn't paint with a broad brush. If he did I will write to him about it. I am active on the JREF forums (Randi's forum) so I can bring it up there if you can provide a link to what he actually said. I certaintly do believe there is a lot of new age, utterly unscientific 'woo woo nonsense' that falls under the category of organics (planting by the moon, many herbal remedy claims etc.), but I do not agree that the core organic principles are nonsense.

It all depends on what he actually said.

I don't know if this is what the original poster saw, but this link goes to a brief comment of his in which he refers to the "woo-woo faction" that grows plants "without the use of anything but water and faith. They'll dub a tomato "non-organic" if it's not one that grew up "on its own," unprotected from hungry insects or poor soil."

Either he's ignorant of organic growing practices or deliberatly misrepresenting the subject.

Here is a link that might be useful: woo-woo faction

I believe that organic produce is certainly gaining favor and has established a beachead.

I also notice that the trend for the big farmers in our nation's mid-section is to less tillage, increased soil health [it had/has a long way to go of course], bio-tech answers to insects and disease, herbicial weed solutions,and larger yields.

I can't believe that Randi is so ill-educated about agriculture as a whole and about "organic" and "eco-" agricultural traditions. Hurumph! I've farmed for years both as a conventional and organic advocate and can attest that organic farming requires more knowledge and understanding and techniques.

On Mountain Curmudgeon's link, a commentor says...
ne of the biggest hoaxes being promoted today is organic agriculture, yet few people seem to care. I have written an article [see below] that I have circulated to anyone who promotes organic agriculture. In it, I point out that there is no logic or science to it, only senseless decisions based on emotion.

The writer of that comment is a Ph.D. chemist specializing on soil chemistry. So it is no wonder he doesn't understand organic farming/gardening. I suspect Amazing Randi has been over-influenced by the chemists.

The writer of that comment is a Ph.D. chemist specializing on soil chemistry. So it is no wonder he doesn't understand organic farming/gardening. I suspect Amazing Randi has been over-influenced by the chemists.

Possibly, but be honest, don't you know some organic promoters who are long on beliefs and really short on evidence?

I see claims of compost tea turning deserts into fertile pastures, but absolutely no evidence, just claims by a person who refuses to submit to peer review.

I also see a widespread ignorance among many as to what they are actually doing. Some seem to have the attitude that anything without the label 'organic' is bad/dangerous and anything with the label is good/safe.

Many widespread beliefs are based purely upon ancedotal evidence and when the experience is shown doubtful by the science, proponents accuse the scientists of being stupid or corrupt.

Certainly there is a core concept behind organic practices that makes good sense and is supported by the science, but there is plenty of 'woo woo' hiding under the organic label.

I would still like to see something specific and detailed Randi has published on the topic to get a feel for what he is criticizing.

There is a broad spectrum of beliefs under the "organic" umbrella. Some have reproducible research to back them up, others don't.

My favorites for woo-woo organics are the "para-magnetic trace mineral" vendors. And the guy who claims that just setting jars of his product around will make things grow better.

There are charletrans in the organic movement as well as the "conventional" movement selling snake oil potions such as the "para magnetic" rocks, and there are charletrans promoting those ideas, too. Keep in mind that the "Conventional" method of farming has really only been in general practive since the end of WWII. Prior to that most food grown was grown "organically" and since that time we have destroyed more of the earth than ever before in the hstory of man, just from farming, and created more pollution than at any other time in history.
That those that tout the "conventional" farming methods want us to see only that spraying glyphosate suppresses weed growth (but not that more is needed because the weeds are becoming resistant to that and that glyphosate has been found in mothers milk) while we should not be aware of, or really believe those that dispute, the studies that show well managed organic farms produce more, in less space. Or in other words the people that are doing research on organic farming and have pHDs really have no idea what they are talking about.

You're right Kimmsr, there are charletans on both sides of the farm fence. The difference is in the degree of damage each is capable of doing.

Given a choice, I think I'd prefer to be victimized by the "para magnetic" hucksters.

I've been reading a collection of essays called 'Against Civilization', assembled by John Zerzan.

Most of the authors pin the destruction of the planet on agriculture and related activities in general. Everything went wrong with the domestication of plants and then animals. There is no distinction made between organic and not organic. If organic was on the same scale as commercial or conventional farming, damage would still be huge. It would be unsustainable. Many organic farmers rely on concentrated 'organic' fertilizer shipped considerable distances; most use drip irrigation - on large scale in many areas irrigation is unsustainable; most use heavy and fossil-fueled mechanical disturbance of the soil. In reality it is conventional farming minus the pesticides.

A quite different animal is the small kitchen garden, human-powered, probably no or little-till, preferably with little input other than human and yard waste. This is much closer to truly sustainable, perhaps beyond the timescale of civilization.

Quote:Is organic the wave of the future, or woo-woo pie in the sky?

Just curious, why is the question formed as either/or? Could orginic not be a future wave and woo-woo? Could it not be neither woo-woo or a wave of the future?

Pat said:
"Most of the authors pin the destruction of the planet on agriculture and related activities in general. Everything went wrong with the domestication of plants and then animals. There is no distinction made between organic and not organic. If organic was on the same scale as commercial or conventional farming, damage would still be huge. It would be unsustainable. "

Swanz
I think you're on to something. It's not just the nasty chemicals
but the scale of gardening. I once saw an interesting documentary
on the populations that live at the base area of Mt. Kiliminjaro.
The area is very densely populated but they practise a form of
sustainable agriculture which includes lots of tall fruit and
nut trees and then layer after layer of shorter and more shade
tolerant plantings many of which are perennial, and root crops .The bottom line
is that it feeds lots of folks and doesn't deplete the soil like
modern conventional farming does.

I said, The writer of that comment is a Ph.D. chemist specializing on soil chemistry. So it is no wonder he doesn't understand organic farming/gardening. I suspect Amazing Randi has been over-influenced by the chemists.

and username said the rest of this stuff in italics...Possibly, but be honest, don't you know some organic promoters who are long on beliefs and really short on evidence?

Good point as well stated above. Regarding paramagnetics, I know a soil tester who is well respected on both sides of the chemical/organic fence. This guy has no axe to grind in either direction, in fact I've never seen anyone as neutral on organics vs. chemicals as this guy. He's been testing soil for decades and recently started testing for paramagnetism in his tests. What he is learning is that "there seems to be something to paramagnetism." Notice that this is not a glowing recommendation. Far from it. But it has caught his attention. This guy is elderly so I'm afraid he'll be gone before he has a recommendation.

Still, username's point is well taken.

I see claims of compost tea turning deserts into fertile pastures, but absolutely no evidence, just claims by a person who refuses to submit to peer review.

Another good point - partially. I think his statement is over stated and the claim that Dr Ingham refuses to stand for peer review is not true. She does refuse to be abused repeatedly; however. Here's a link in which cattle are used to reclaim 60-year-old strip mine tailings (300 feet deep) in the high Arizona Sonoran desert. My cousins grew up in that town, so I can attest to the former barren wasteland of those piles. If you can find a less hospitable soil I'd like to see it. Not even weeds grew in it for 60 years. Now it is pasture. It was not done with compost tea but it was done.

I also see a widespread ignorance among many as to what they are actually doing. Some seem to have the attitude that anything without the label 'organic' is bad/dangerous and anything with the label is good/safe.

Are you going to keep making good points all day?

Many widespread beliefs are based purely upon ancedotal evidence and when the experience is shown doubtful by the science, proponents accuse the scientists of being stupid or corrupt.

That's true too. You could call that desert reclamation using cattle an anecdote, too. It usually takes a minimum of thirty samples to make an experiment with any validity.

Certainly there is a core concept behind organic practices that makes good sense and is supported by the science, but there is plenty of 'woo woo' hiding under the organic label.

That core science is biology, not chemistry. The sooner we all realize that the better.

I would still like to see something specific and detailed Randi has published on the topic to get a feel for what he is criticizing.

Yup. Like I said at first.

username and I don't agree much, so this is refreshing.

Yes, Swanz.

We have to learn to live with the much lower return per unit of human labor that comes from a healthy sustainable permaculture, as compared to conventional plant and re-plant, disturb and re-disturb, endless input horticulture.

Scale and style have been almost completely obscured and ignored in the vociferous debate over to spray or not to spray. It could be a moot point, because healthy permacultures don't need spraying, nor hardly any fertilizing once well-established.

Imagine of all the tilled fields of the world were converted to appropriate permacultures? Large profits from the food-base for large companies would vanish, and in exchange there would ultimately be a wider variety of local foods available at lower cost, and organic by default.

Even grain can be grown in a permacultural fashion, as demonstrated in the one-straw revolution. We would pay more for grain, but less for fruit and vegetables. Red Russian kale from your area instead of broccoli from Cal. Well-adapted new england grain instead of hybrid red winter from kansas; let the bottomless kansan soils sustainably grow some permacultured veggies for kansans - who knows, they may find they prefer that to canned corn grown in Nebraska.

I may be mistaken, I probably am, but isn't organic production very labor intensive? in a large farm, organically grown and harvested fruit and veggies, can cost tens of thousands more to produce the same as chemically treated. I bet the slave revoloution of the 1860's caused the majority of the "dust bowl" due to the need for more tractors and chemicals and the poor planting practices. slaves were a despicable use of human beings, but they made organically grown farming affordable.
on a small farm slavary is still used today, but it is called getting the kids to help, or family growing. just my thoughts on the subject.
John

When we're talking about organics, I don't think we should dismiss concepts like paramagnetic out of hand. I believe the concept is used within biodynamics, for example and, outside of conventional gardening and farming, biodynamics is considered by many to be a very respectable practice. I think organics as woo-woo is more a mirror image of present limitations and less a mirror image of what actually happens in nature. For me, at the heart of organic gardening is the chance to understand more deeply how nature really works and, unfortunately, it may involve 'carrying the stigma' of being 'woo-woo.'

It's interesting to see that one of the meanings that the word "conventional" carries is: a : according with, sanctioned by, or based on convention b : lacking originality or individuality : TRITE c (1) : ORDINARY, COMMONPLACE (Webster's upper case.) So who wants to be conventional anyway?

For those of you so inclined, I've added some info on paramagnetism taken from somewhere, but without the reference:
Paramagnetism

Professor Phil Callahan discovered that paramagnetism (that is - a weak attraction to a magnet), whilst only a weak force in nature relative to ferromagnetism (which is well known to have powerful effects on biological processes) has an enhancing effect on the fertility and vitality on lifeforms. Even people living on paramagnetic soil areas are happier and more peaceful, whilst enjoying good soil fertility. Callahan believes that paramagnetism is as important as nutrients, air and moisture are to soil.

Volcanic rock is a major source of paramagnetic material. Fine powdered volcanic rock dust is an excellant source of nutrients for soil micro-organisms and recent university studies indicate that it improves soil conductivity. Broadcast over poor soil, such rock dust will induce a paramagnetic state and act as a long lasting fertiliser. Paramagnetic stone circles and rock mulches around trees are also beneficial in the garden.

Here is a link that might be useful: Paramagnetic

Now this is an interesting discussion. Stuff on compost tea, notes on Elaine Ingham, someone even mentioning Jerry Baker!

Organic production certainly maintains the ability of the soil to hold nutrients, but if everyone used organic methods for fertility then the world would starve because bacteria and fungi in the soil can only fix so much nitrogen per year in a particular area -- and that amount does not promote maximum -- or even efficient -- growth. Instead we take nitrogen from the air with the Haber-Bosch reaction and use that for fertilizer. We should all use organic methods for building up our soil -- but for fertility using synthetic sources makes a lot of sense both in terms of fertilizer cost and sustainability.

The other part of organic farming is the use of pesticides. There is an idea that synthetic pesticides are more dangerous than organic pesticides. It's an absolutely nutty idea when you start to look at nature. One of the five most carcinogenic substances known to man, aflatoxin -- is natural -- it can be found in neem, an organic insecticide/fungicide. Rotenone is one of the natural insecticides that is used in organic production -- it can cause parkinsons like symptoms in rats. Copper sulfate is used to control diseases in organic production -- it's extremely toxic if ingested. Both rotenone and copper sulfate are extremely toxic to fish if misapplied.

Then we get to the homemade pesticides like compost tea -- hey, this is a great fertilizer, but it does't do diddly for diseases, and it may have human pathogens depending upon how it was brewed (All due respect to Elaine Ingham and her work - she has not proven that these pathogens are never in aerated teas and at least one study shows that they may be). Jerry Baker solutions tend to be damaging to plants in many circumstances and he oversells them to a fault -- I'm convinced that he just makes stuff up.

To me what it all means is that the basic organic idea -- using once living material to build up the soil -- is right on the money, but to exclude synthetics -- be it pesticides or fertilizers -- just because they're synthetics is nuts. In other words, modern orgnaic growers have largely missed the boat.

Thanks for the link mikkle. Of all of the ideas I've heard since joining this forum, paramagnetism is second to aerated compost tea as the most intriguing of ideas I'd like to try. I've had great success with ACT and plan to order some paramagnetic rock for next years garden.

Who is the 'we' that takes nitrogen from the air and what is the Haber-Bosch reaction?

>Who is the 'we' that takes nitrogen from the air and what is the Haber-Bosch reaction?

It's a process to make synthetic ammonia by combining nitrogen from the air with hydrogen under high pressure and temps.

Ineresting the claim that the world would starve using organic methods.

I used to have a father-in-law who worked for for a giant food corporation and he used to claim that humans have developed in such a way that their bodies now require all the synthetic chemicals they put in their foods. I think he actually believed that crap, too.

Now this guy comes on the Organic Gardening forum to tell us we have missed the boat and that we are a bit nuts. Yawn. We've been hearing that from the chemical lobby for years.

I think everyone has made some great points here but are forgetting the major factor which will determine whether organic farming will become "the wave of the future"....the consumer.

People are becoming more and more health conscious and as such organic produce is now becoming a mainstream concept in a lot of western countries. The more people buying it will inevitably lead to more people growing it, regardless of whether they can produce more per acre or whether it is better for the Earth.

And donÂt forget IT DOES TASTE BETTER!!!! :)

You know, sometimes I post things and then want to take them back -- that's kind of the case here.

I stand by my assertion that you can't feed the world with organics alone because of the quantity of N needed (If anyone is interested there's a fascinating book on the subject by Smil called Enriching the Earth), but I do think that organic food tastes better, and I think that organics are underutilized -- and I do grow my own organic foods (herbs, tomatoes and some roses) -- I use no pesticides on my food organic or otherwise -- I have to admit that at work I do apply chemicals -- but I'm not convinced that organic chemicals are any safer than synthetic -- in fact I believe just the opposite.

My apologies for an ill-thought out post.

Althea, I was able to obtain granite dust from someone who visits grave stone cutters and collects the dust from their work, and then he sells it to local gardeners. There are other companies who also have waste granite dust and might give it away, but one local company that cuts granite for floor pieces, etc. uses aluminum in the manufacturing process and ruins the dust for garden uses.

The dust is heavy, and although relatively inexpensive itself, the cost of shipping is usually high. One rock dust that seems to be favored is basalt, a volcanic mineral (but doesn't seem to work well when mixed with granite dust, I might add.) I understand that basalt can be purchased from areas where it is mined (somewhere in Wisconsin, for example (?)) for as little as $4.00 per ton. But then you need to visit the site with a truck. As I look at a garden products catalog, I see that glacial rock dust is selling at $15.95 for 50 lbs, with $25 shipping to where I live.

mountain_curmudgeon, I couldn't agree with you more about the inflated claims of suporters of the petrochemical industry.
"There is an idea that synthetic pesticides are more dangerous than organic pesticides. It's an absolutely nutty idea when you start to look at nature." I've long seen this argument where we're invited to look at a natural/organic product that is harmful to humans or animals, etc. and then asked to assume that all natural/organic products used in fighting pests and weeds fall into the same harmful category. Or we're invited to believe that all of the natural products are going to be used unwisely. Followed by the assertion that we therefor must rely on chemicals to fight our battles. Armed with the idea that chemicals don't fall into the harmful category.

A better tack would be to look around your own locality and see how high GM seed costs and high chemical pesticide and herbicide costs are major contributers to the destruction of small and local farmers' livelihoods. Look at the emerging research on the destructive nature of chemical pesticides and herbicides and GM foods on human and animal health and to the destructive farming practices that follow from the use of the chemical input shortcuts, that, in my opinion, nature never intended to be used in this way. And then see what you can do to affect a positive change, even if in a small way in your own garden.

One thing I would say in defense of those who experience some discomfort with organic pesticides is that if farmers rely soley on input substitution, and don't take measures to build their soils to be able to naturally resist weeds and pests, then we could have a problem with organic pesticides. You can ruin a good thing by using it unwisely.

Althea, Could this be the 3rd most interesting thing? I've added a link on planting with the motion of the moon in mind. I've not used this particular system myself, but I know that a lot of people do.

Here is a link that might be useful: Gardening with...

Oh dear. Someone posted in answer while I was composing. I feel like Wiley Coyote - looking back at the cliff he's just run over and hanging motionless in thin air. :)

What you are saying, in effect, is that the world's total population can't be fed without using fertilizer made from petroleum and natural gas. Which is pretty likely correct. When that stuff starts to really run scarce and get far more expensive, many more people are going to die from malnutrition and it's side-effects than do currently.

When the population stops reducing those who survive can figure out how many each area can carry on local horticulture, on naturally occuring N.

Mikkle, I thought I saw paramagnetic rock in one of the gardening catalogs I received last year. I thought it was Peaceful Valley. Although they have a number of rock powders listed, paramagnetic rock isn't among the choices. The new catalogs have just started to arrive (poor mailman), so I'll keep an eye out for any that offer PR. The other possibilites you mentioned are worth looking in to.

I have planted seeds according to the moon phases. I started after seeing my SIL's mother's garden - a jaw dropper. She has always used the moon phase as a guide. Planting according to moon phases is great if you start seeds indoors, but I prefer direct sowing and it isn't always possible to use the guide when weather is the most controlling factor. If the soil is too cool during the best phase, the seeds don't germinate well, if at all. Direct sow moon phase gardening probably works better for someone with a longer growing season.

Organic is not the wave of the future, it is the fastest growing segment of the food industry. Organic is happening now. Most of it is being driven by small-scale farmers and growers, making it sustainable and good for local economies. This is why "big food" is throwing its weight around in Washington and getting Congress to water down the regs; if organic wasn't happening now and it is wasn't profitable, Kraft, General Mills and others wouldn't care.

Here is a link that might be useful: Rural Life 2.0

Just a quick point --

Nitrogen for fertilizers DO NOT come from petrochemicals -- at least not commonly, the nitrogen comes from the air via the Haber-Bosch reaction. The hydrogen comes from natural gas -- so the process as it now stands is not completely sustainable -- but it's a heck of a lot more sustainable than something based on petrochemicals.

among other things, snakeoil said,
Organic production certainly maintains the ability of the soil to hold nutrients, but if everyone used organic methods for fertility then the world would starve because bacteria and fungi in the soil can only fix so much nitrogen per year in a particular area -- and that amount does not promote maximum -- or even efficient -- growth.

I disagree. The more I see organic livestock producers using organic methods and materials, the more optimistic I am about organic farming. The first guy who got me started looking into organic livestock production raises brangus cattle in central Texas. Many years ago he changed the way he and his family had been raising cattle. He stopped using any chemicals, fertilizer, and hormones. Soon enough he found out he didn't need medicines or dewormers. After 12 years of organic production, he has doubled his production per acre versus where he started and as measured against his neighbors. He is so productive, in fact, that as his neighbors go out of the cattle business, he is buying their land and converting it to his methods. This is happening in all parts of Texas whether a rainy or dry. The difference between wet or dry areas seems to be the time it takes to see results. But the results are always positive (when they do it right). There's a lot more to this than simply stopping fertilizing, but not much more - slightly different pasture management. These guys are growing a LOT more grass than their neighbors.

I find that very interesting -- but certainly this person is providing inputs? -- are his cattle fed only what they can find in the pasture? If so then how can a favorable N balance be maintained? Nutrients would be leaving (because of the harvest of cattle) without being replaced leading to net nutrient loss and a non-sustainable situation (without outside inputs). If you are contending that microbes in the ground can fix enough N to replace what is lost then that's your perogitive, but current research -- even old research -- does not support that position -- and you're talking about a pretty well researched area. Would you have a link to some more information regarding this cattleman's practices and findings? I wonder if he isn't bringing in manure from other cattlemen?

A final note -- growing cattle is all well and good, but meat is a very inefficient sort of food -- it takes many more acres of cattle to feed a person for a year than it takes acres of wheat and vegetables. If you can't provide greater production of plant materials then you can't feed the world.

Althea, 'Paramagnetic' refers to a class of minerals (rock powders) used in a garden or field that attract what Callahan calls weak forces. It's like a magnet that will draw iron filings to it, as opposed to a non-magnetic substance like wood which won't. I believe it's biodynamic agriculture that explains about the relationship of paramagnetic minerals, clay, and lime to produce nutrition for plants. "Secrets of the Soil" by Peter Tompkins and Christopher Bird is a good reading source.

Various rock powders are basalt, glacial rock dust, granite dust, etc. "The Enlivened Rock Powders" by Harvey Lisle is another good source for understanding the various rock powders and their uses.

I agree with you about the complexity of planting using the positions of stars, etc. Sometimes it is difficult to follow through and you just have to go ahead.

...well, what about the quality of our irrigation water? What about atmospheric deposition: the baggage that comes with 'Mother Nature'these days?

The price and availiability of natural gas historically stays in lockstep with petroleum. But increasing consumption pressure on natural gas (to reduce emmissions) is likely to drive it above petro. Power plants can't burn oil or deisel due to emmissions. Coal-burning plants aren't being built because they are more expensive to build than gas-burning plants (though that will change).

So quite soon electricity generation will be in direct competition with fertilizer production for gas. Which would people prefer to give up?

Thanks for the additional reading suggestions mikkle. First because my knowledge of geology is, for all practicial purposes, nonexistant. Then because I read Field's review of Callahan's book. (Field posts here on occasion). Although Field's review won't discourage my experiments, it's good (for me at least) to keep another point of view in mind.

Peter Tomkin's book "The Secret Life of Plants" is one my favorite, so I'll read his soil book first.

Here is a link that might be useful: field on paramagnetism and callahan

That's a good question, I don't know, personally I'd rather give up electricity than eating....There could be other ways to get the hydrogen of course, but these would require greater inputs -- maybe President Bush will get some kind of hydrogen initiative going????

Pickwick -- You have noted my biggest concern about fertility, both synthetic and organic. We do a lousy job of keeping the nutrients where we want them and end up poisoning environments that can't handle the extra nutrient load. It's more of a problem with synthetics now -- obviously, but it used to be a problem with Peruvian Guano and Chilaen nitrates which were a main source of fertilizer back in the 1800's and early 1900s. If we were more efficient with our fertilizers we wouldn't need as many synthetics.

Commercially it has been said that Organic is a growing percentage of retail sales. If this is true, it is surely something I have not witnessed at our local 35 store chain of gardening centers. All our 'organic' stuff is hidden in the back where it placates those customers like me that prefer Heirloom and organic products. Its just a segment that the retails don't want to miss out, however it is minor in comparison to the bags and bags of salt based fertilizers sold daily at said stores.

Just my observation, sad as it is.

Pudgy

In addition Pudgy, at least one of our biggest local greenhouses displays the synthetic fertilizers next to plants they are selling. In all fairness, last summer they had a bone or blood meal fertilizer advertised as organic next to the roses in addition to the synthetic fertilizers. They didn't have any displays for composting and soil building materials. In fact I don't think they even sell composting related items.

Went to the annual Acres USA conference earlier this month. The theme was Food As Medicine. Nothing but organic of course, unless it was biodynamic. One thing struck me: the success of "faux organic". Examples:

1. Wal-mart is the largest seller of organioc food in the country (and you can guess that the food isn't grown on small local farms with loving care).

2. The hi-jacking (sp?) of organic standards by the big boys, with the notion of "what can we get accepted as organic?" To my mind we now have to distinguish between "Organic" -- as allowed by the standards -- and "organic" (small 'o') as grown by traditional organic growers with a concern for quality.

3. All the big boys e.g. Kraft, General Mills, and so on, buying up organic firms (whose founders are now nicely rich) so that most packaged "organic" food is produced by the big boys who -- one imagines -- care more for their subsidiaries' profits than the quality and integrity of their food.

4.The operations of some industrial "Organic" growers are indistinguishable from and often contiguous to their non-organic operations, e.g. close-confinement dairies run by a very large "Organic" operator with milk in all the big-box organic stores.

Regards, Peter.

Thanks for the report Peter. The word "organic" is definitely in peril, as is the word "sustainable" which some are advocating as a euphamism for "Chemical Lite." Maybe its time to coin a new word that the Krafts and General Mills of the world can't co-op.

You all are on the wrong track.

Organic before USDA was a set mismatched standards that varied by the state you lived in had a standard at all.

There is no set standard for sustainability.

the organic standard that people originally wanted included stuff required organic to be locally grown and other such stuff which could not be defined in the law do to fact those standards would have been illegal because they would have resticted interstate commerce.

Also orginic does not mean that the food has not been contaminated by bacteria or other pathogens. Only that it has been raised by with no artifical chemicals.

I suggest if you really want know about the creation of the usda organic standards you should read several of the articles in organic gardening magazine in 1990's on the subject. Also reading hough the congressional record will also enlighten you on the subject.

Actually, organic standards allow for use of certain artificial chemicals, although that list is not long.

What is organic?

Does anyone really care what the answer is?

You use some naturally occuring substance in your gardening practice, but it isn't approved by some self-appointed board. do you care?

If so you aren't an organic gardener so much as you are a gardner who adheres to whatever some self-appointed board says you should do.

You use some man made thing in your gardening that some self-appointed board exempts. If so you aren't an organic gardener, you are a gardener who adheres to whatever some self-appointed board allows/tolerates.

Honestly, we are just growing plants, why try to turn it into rocket science? We do what we do because we want to. We can grow plants in nothing other than water and chemicals and the plants do just fine. We can grow plants in dirt treated with nothing but chemicals and they do fine. We can grow plants in dirt treated with nothing other than things approved by some self-appointed board who certifies the things we use as being acceptable and the plants do fine.

What does this say about us and what does this say about the plants we grow?

I really doubt that anyone who gardens 'organically' does so for the benefit of the plants since it is self evidently true that plants don't care whether they are cared for synthetically, organically or in combination. I also doubt that it is true that any 'pure chemical' gardener (if they exist) does things this way for the benefit of the plants since it is self-evidently true the plants don't care.

So, why does anyone practice gardening using organics, synthetics or a combination?

Cuz we feel like it is the best answer I can come up with and it appears to have nothing to do with the plants themselves.

"What is organic?

Does anyone really care what the answer is?"

These questions have already been answered in the thread. To summarize, organic gardening begins with the soil which holds nutrients on which the plants feed. Sythetic gardening treats the soil only as a medium for chemical delivery.

I suggest you read some of the many good books around about organic gardening. The classic (imo) Rodale's "Encyclopedia ..." is linked below. Eliot Coleman has an excellent book titled "The New Organic Grower" that I highly recommend as well. Or as Captain Compost has suggested in other threads, go to the library and read every book they have on organic gardening.

Here is a link that might be useful: encyclopedia

mountain curmudgen, I think I like "sustainable". My idea of sustainable is something you can do for a thousand years and still have the ability to keep doing it. Synonymous with "renewable" perhaps -- which is at the heart of organic.

Much of what we do on farms and gardens just isn't sustainable. Using rare earths from Utah or even Chilean potash can't last. Ammonium nitrate made from natural gas has a limit. Kelp meal can be renewable though, so long as it's used in reasonable quantities. Perhaps the only really sustainable practices are permaculture and biodynamic, which stresses self-sufficiency with minimal imports on to the farm or garden. Regards, Peter.

wow! What a great thread! And I only came on the organic forum today because I finally made that compost bin and felt like gathering a little knowledge from fellow gardeners. Boy! Have you guys educated me!

Along with the often unreliable words of 'organic' and 'sustainable' to describe gardening practices, where precisely does 'permaculture' fit in?

I have had the opportunity to brush the surface of this topic, but haven't put it in perspective completely with the terms 'organic' and 'sustainable' yet. I know there is a permaculture formum on gardenweb, but this thread seems to be on the track of discussing such things, particularly how to "tread lightly on the earth" and how to feed individuals, families, villages and the world effectively.

Organic farming is from the heart.
It's such a long thread, I've already forgotten who said it. and I've mutilated the text, though hopefully not the meaning. That said, I'm in complete agreement with the sentiment. What we aspire to, ie producing nutritious food from the earth without damaging the earth, can not be regulated in any meaningful way until the whole of community changes thought patterns. The ideas of "nutritious food" and "not damaging the earth" need to be of higher priority than the profits that come of this coaxing life from dirt. Of course, many might counter that statement with thoughts on money efficiency. But here, I say again, these ideals can't be accomplished unless the individual, family, community and world changes thought patterns, especially as related to money and commerce.

Well, I suppose that went off on a side-track..but I'd still like to know where you think 'permaculture' relates to the discussion of catchwords in agriculture and what the true wave of the future will be. Organic might be happening now, but how do you think these slacking regulations will affect the future of raising food?

Trish